Advertisement

New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 261–275 | Cite as

A Posthumanist Perspective on Caring in Early Childhood Teaching

  • Alison WarrenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Caring occupies a contested space in early childhood teaching. Caring is valued as crucial to children’s physical and emotional wellbeing but, at the same time, it is undervalued as separate from education and more difficult to measure. This article argues for reconceptualising care as complex, dynamic, problematic, political, and assembled in affective flows among human and other-than-human components. Concepts from writing of Deleuze, and Deleuze and Guattari are used in a concept-as-method approach using a vignette from a research study of emotions in early childhood teaching. Rhizoanalysis involves mapping affective flows at the same time as tracing constraints within assemblages as means to critique and innovate from within entanglements of an early childhood setting. A cartographic approach using Deleuzian concepts of sense, paradox, and nonsense is used to explore how language expresses sense of caring beyond what can be denoted, manifested, or signified in statements by an early childhood teacher.

Keywords

Caring Sense Assemblage Rhizoanalysis Cartography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the guidance of my doctoral supervisors Professor Peter Roberts and Associate Professor Kathleen Quinlivan, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, who provided feedback on this article.

References

  1. Ailwood, J. (2007). Mothers, teachers, maternalism and early childhood education and care: Some historical connections. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 157–165.  https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2007.8.2.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ailwood, J. (2017). Exploring the care in early childhood education and care. Global Studies of Childhood, 7(4), 305–310.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610617747977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ailwood, J. (2019). Care: Cartographies of power and politics in ECEC. In Paper presented at the early childhood seminar series, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJ4CqiqkEQ.
  4. Albrecht-Crane, C. (2005). Style, stutter. In C. J. Stivale (Ed.), Gilles Deleuze: Key concepts (pp. 121–130). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aslanian, T. K. (2017). Ready or not, here they come! Care as a material and organisational practice in ECEC for children under two. Global Studies of Childhood, 7(4), 323–334.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610617747979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aslanian, T. K. (2018). Remove ‘care’ and stir: Materialising early childhood teacher education in Norway. Journal of Education Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1555648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G. (1969/1990). The logic of sense (C. V. Boundas, M. Lester, & C. J. Stivale, Trans.). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy (R. Hurley, Trans.). San Francisco, CA: City Lights.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G. (2004). How do we recognise structuralism? (M. Taormina, Trans.). In D. Lapoujade (Ed.), Desert islands and other texts (pp. 170–192). Paris, France: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980/1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1991/1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2015). New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 399–414.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson, A. Y. (2017). Thinking without method. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(9), 666–674.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417725355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, A., & Hoskins, T. (2016). A mark on paper: The matter of Indigenous-Settler history. In C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 75–92). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  15. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2016). Deleuzian-Guattarian rhizomatics: Mapping the desiring forces and connections between educational practices and the neurosciences. In C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 37–57). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  16. Löfdahl, A., & Folke-Fichtelius, M. (2015). Preschool’s new suit: Care in terms of learning and knowledge. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 35(3), 260–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2014.995600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacGregor Wise, J. (2005). Assemblage. In C. J. Stivale (Ed.), Gilles Deleuze: Key concepts (pp. 77–87). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  18. MacLure, M. (2016). Qualitative methodology and the new materialisms: ‘A little of Dionysus’s blood’? [Keynote address]. In Paper presented at the 12th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, A. D., & Kamberelis, G. (2013). Mapping not tracing: Qualitative educational research with political teeth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 668–679.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masny, D. (2013). Rhizoanalytic pathways in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(5), 339–348.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107780041347955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. May, T. (2005). Gilles Deleuze: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazzei, L. A. (2017). Following the contour of concepts toward a minor inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(9), 675–685.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417725356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ministry of Education. (2017). Te whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Osgood, J. (2012). Narratives from the nursery: Negotiating professional identities in early childhood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Page, J. (2018). Characterising the principles of professional love in early childhood care and education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(2), 125–141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1459508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Renold, E., & Ivinson, G. (2014). Horse-girl assemblages: Towards a post-human cartography of girls’ desire in an ex-mining valleys community. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(3), 361–376.Google Scholar
  29. Sims, M., Alexander, E., Nislin, M., Pedey, K., Tiko, L. T., & Sajaniemi, N. (2018). Infant and toddler educare: A challenge to neoliberalism. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 8(1), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v8i1.594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, A. B. (1996). Educare for infants and toddlers in New Zealand childcare centres: Is it a reality and how important a component is joint attention? In: Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Quebec City, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. St. Pierre, E. A. (2017). Deleuze and Guattari’s language for new empirical inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(11), 1080–1089.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1151761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. St. Pierre, E. A. (2019). Post qualitative inquiry in an ontology of immanence. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 3–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418772634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sumsion, J. (2008). Critical reflections of the experiences of a male early childhood worker. In E. Wood (Ed.), The Routledge reader in early childhood education (pp. 287–304). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality and purpose. Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(2), 158–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2010.484259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vaughan, G., & Estola, E. (2008). The gift paradigm in early childhood education. In S. Farquhar & P. Fitzsimons (Eds.), Philosophy of early childhood education: Transforming narratives (pp. 24–41). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Warren, A. (2014). ‘Relationships for me are the key for everything’: Early childhood teachers' subjectivities as relational professionals. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(3), 262–271.  https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.3.262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren, A. (2019). Engaging and negotiating emotions in early childhood teaching: Towards creative critique and experimentation. (PhD doctoral thesis), University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/16475.
  38. Williams, J. (2008). Gilles Deleuze’s logic of sense: A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© New Zealand Association for Research in Education 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Te Rito Maioha Early Childhood New ZealandNelsonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations